On 06/09/2014 02:11 PM, Matt Turner wrote:
> +/* Note that this function does not attempt to recognize that reduction trees
> + * are already balanced.
> + */
> +static void
> +is_reduction(ir_instruction *ir, void *data)
> +{
> + struct is_reduction_data *ird = (struct is_reduction_data *)data;
> + if (!ird->is_reduction)
> + return;
> +
> + /* We don't want to balance a tree that contains multiple constants, since
> + * we'll be able to constant fold them if they're not in separate
> subtrees.
> + */
> + if (ir->as_constant()) {
> + if (ird->contains_constant) {
> + ird->is_reduction = false;
> + }
Because of the way visit_tree works, I think this would produce a
false-positive for an expression like foo[2] + 3. Eventually
is_reduction will get called for both the 2 and the 3.
> + ird->contains_constant = true;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + ir_expression *expr = ir->as_expression();
> + if (!expr)
> + return;
> +
> + /* Non-constant matrices might still contain constant vec4 that we can
> + * constant fold once split up. Handling matrices will need some more
> + * work.
> + */
> + if (expr->type->is_matrix()) {
> + ird->is_reduction = false;
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + if (ird->type != NULL && ird->type != expr->type) {
> + ird->is_reduction = false;
> + return;
> + }
> + ird->type = expr->type;
> +
> + ird->num_expr++;
> + if (is_reduction_operation(expr->operation)) {
This (and, actually, the type check above might get tricked by
expressions like a+foo[b%c]+d+e.
I think you might need something like visit_tree that just doesn't try
to navigate past any sort of ir_dereference (or a version that allows
the predicate function to halt navigation of subtrees).
> + if (ird->operation != 0 && ird->operation != expr->operation)
> + ird->is_reduction = false;
> + ird->operation = expr->operation;
> + } else {
> + ird->is_reduction = false;
> + }
> +}
_______________________________________________
mesa-dev mailing list
mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
